MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: We reject petitioner's contention that Family Court erred in continuing the existing custody arrangement with respect to the parties' daughter. The court properly determined that petitioner failed to make "a showing of a change in circumstances which reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest of the child" ( Matter of Irwin v. Neyland, 213 A.D.2d 773, 773; see Pudlewski v. Pudlewski, 309 A.D.2d 1296; Matter of Daniels v. Daniels, 309 A.D.2d 1174). "An existing custodial arrangement should not be changed `merely because of changes in marital status, economic circumstances or improvements in moral or psychological adjustment, at least so long as the custodial parent has not been shown to be unfit, or perhaps less fit, to continue as the proper custodian' ( Obey v. Degling, 37 N.Y.2d 768, 770; see, Fox v. Fox, 177 A.D.2d 209, 211)" ( Matter of Atkins v. Maynard, 288 A.D.2d 878, 879, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 609). Further, "[a] custody determination by the trial court must be accorded great deference ( see, Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 173-174) and should not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record ( see, Matter of Gill v. Gill, 135 A.D.2d 1090, 1091)" ( Matter of Green v. Mitchell, 266 A.D.2d 884, 884; see Steele v. Rose, 309 A.D.2d 1242).